A recent post by sjatro at CF illustrates this point about professional incompetence in astronomy in 2020.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... t-75328973
sjastro wrote:In a previous post it was shown Plasma Cosmology is incompatible with nuclear physics....
Er, no. In a previous post sjastro "aledged' that PC theory was incompatible with unicorns and monopoles, neither of which have ever been shown to actually exist in nature.
as it cannot explain the existence of cosmic chronometers in an infinitely old universe.
This is also a patently untrue assertion since Dr. Oliver Manuel, with a PHD in nuclear physics, Hilton Ratcliffe and myself have written about that very topic. In an infinitely old universe the neutron, specifically neutron stars are the 'infinite' and ageless component of the universe. Everything else, from hydrogen atoms to electrons are created by a release of neutrons, and via fusion processes, various elements are transformed into heavier elements over time.
Any "chronometers" which might be available to us in such an eternal environment would relate to when *specific events* transformed various elements into their recent form. They would not necessarily need to be related to any *singular* recent event however (like a bang).
https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
Similarly it incompatible at the smaller time scales of particle physics such as being unable to explain how free neutrons which have a half life of 15 minutes have “enough time” to form nuclei.
A "neutron star" allows for stable neutrons to exist at much more massive scales than the atomic nuclei, and they can remain in such a configuration over billions of years.
Emissions of neutrons from such macroscopic structures might result in the release of free electrons and free protons, and free neutrinos. As long as one allows for fusion to occur, then hydrogen can fuse into heavier elements over time.
Theoretically neutron stars can become very massive due to mergers with other materials, but it wouldn't necessarily have to become *as* massive as mainstream models which attempt to estimate the object's mass based on x-ray emissions. In PC theory the x-ray emissions would relate more to amount of current flowing through the plasma atmosphere around the neutron star rather than induced currents generated by gravity alone.
As a result Plasma Cosmology offers no explanation for the evolution of elements in the universe.
That's obviously false. sjastro is ignoring the fact that all EU/PC solar models include fusion processes, typically fusion that is related to z-pinch and coronal loop activity. Both Alfven's solar model relies on internal solar fusion, as would a cathode model.
Stars might even form and explode themselves *back* into neutron stars if conditions are favorable.
Big Bang Cosmology has no such compatibility issues with particle physics
Absolutely false! BBC is *completely and totally *incompatible* with the *standard particle physics model*. Period, end of story. It cannot peacefully coexist with the standard particle physics model, whereas PC theory is *completely* compatible with the standard model of particle physics, and whatever "hypothetical changes" might eventually occur, should they actually ever occur at all.
Since Plasma Cosmology is a static model there is no temperature scaling with expansion and as demonstrated in post #107 the temperature is too low for the interaction to occur.
It really doesn't matter if there is temperature scaling in EU/PC models. Temperatures in space aren't limited to the effects of gravity *alone* in EU/PC models, and effectively the *amount of current*, the density of that current, and the density of the plasma conducting that current, along with it's physical properties will determine the highest energy concentrations in the universe, and they will vary over time.
There's still *plenty* of enough energy to explain how fusion occurs, and how even very high energy and temperatures can exist in a PC model.
Essentially sjastro is "making it up" as he goes with respect to strawman arguments about PC theory.
I should point out that PC theory is compatible with both a static/eternal universe (which I personally favor), and also an expanding universe, and even a universe which expands and contracts locally in various places. There's nothing inherently limiting about PC theory with respect to particle physics, or electromagnetism.
On the other hand, the LCDM model violates conservation of energy laws *twice*, it's internally self conflicted with respect to estimating the expansion constant which it is based upon, and it's incompatible with virtually every high redshift observation in space. Distant galaxies and quasars are far to 'massive" and "mature" to fit nicely into the expansion model.
The LCDM model is completely at odds with *standard particle physics*! Think about that for a moment. It's physically incompatible with the most successful particle physics model in the history of particle physics and which allows for technologies like our computers to even exist.
When you really look at the 'pros' and the 'cons' of various cosmology models, you really have to compare the relative 'problems' and seriousness of those problems to each other. Any cosmology model that requires us to toss out laws of physics, and which is *inherently* incompatible with the standard particle physics model is far less plausible than any cosmology model which neither violates any laws of physics, and which *is* compatible with the standard particle physics model, circuit theory, etc.
When you really look at and analyze the arguments against PC theory which are put forth by "professional astronomers" and "scientists", they are simply irrational, and highly ironic arguments. sjastro really needs to pull the metaphysical logs out of the eyes of his own cosmology model before he starts discussing the hypothetical problems with other models.
He obviously doesn't understand his *own* model very well, and he clearly doesn't understand any of the proposed "solutions" to any of the problems he seems to imagine in PC theory.
The part that blows me away is the fact that when we look at the highest redshift part of the universe, it shows no signs at all of "evolution over time". The galaxies at the highest redshifts are as massive and as mature as the ones in our local neighborhood. The quasars as absolutely *massive*, far more massive than the mainstream model allows for, and there's no sign of evolution over time.
The LCDM model is incompatible with the standard particle physics model, it violates known laws of physics multiple times, and it is internally self conflicted with respect to the estimation of the Hubble constant which it is based upon. Its at odds with virtually every high redshift observation of space made over the past two decades as well.
One would expect that a "professional" could and would attempt to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of various cosmology models in a fair and honest manner. In this case however, I see no signs of any such internal self reflection.
https://www.christianforums.com/proxy.p ... edf32419d7
Even the graphic he's using in the post is rather ironic. It begins with an assumption about a "theory of everything", which requires a quantum description of gravity that does everything that GR theory does with respect to gravity, though no such thing exists, and the LCDM model is based on a *spacetime curvature* definition of gravity.
The GUT involved only apparently attempts to explain the *standard* model of particle physics, though the LCDM model is incompatible with that particular particle physics model. I'm guessing it's a GUT slide from 30 years ago before the invention (out of whole cloth) of 'dark energy' and the transformation of 'dark matter' in the LCDM model into "exotic forms of matter which are incompatible with the standard particle physics model". Funny stuff.
A recent post by sjatro at CF illustrates this point about professional incompetence in astronomy in 2020.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/an-example-of-the-failure-of-plasma-cosmology.8160695/page-6#post-75328973
[quote="sjastro"]In a previous post it was shown Plasma Cosmology is incompatible with nuclear physics....[/quote]
Er, no. In a previous post sjastro "aledged' that PC theory was incompatible with unicorns and monopoles, neither of which have ever been shown to actually exist in nature.
[quote] as it cannot explain the existence of cosmic chronometers in an infinitely old universe.[/quote]
This is also a patently untrue assertion since Dr. Oliver Manuel, with a PHD in nuclear physics, Hilton Ratcliffe and myself have written about that very topic. In an infinitely old universe the neutron, specifically neutron stars are the 'infinite' and ageless component of the universe. Everything else, from hydrogen atoms to electrons are created by a release of neutrons, and via fusion processes, various elements are transformed into heavier elements over time.
Any "chronometers" which might be available to us in such an eternal environment would relate to when *specific events* transformed various elements into their recent form. They would not necessarily need to be related to any *singular* recent event however (like a bang).
https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0511051
[quote]Similarly it incompatible at the smaller time scales of particle physics such as being unable to explain how free neutrons which have a half life of 15 minutes have “enough time” to form nuclei.[/quote]
A "neutron star" allows for stable neutrons to exist at much more massive scales than the atomic nuclei, and they can remain in such a configuration over billions of years.
Emissions of neutrons from such macroscopic structures might result in the release of free electrons and free protons, and free neutrinos. As long as one allows for fusion to occur, then hydrogen can fuse into heavier elements over time.
Theoretically neutron stars can become very massive due to mergers with other materials, but it wouldn't necessarily have to become *as* massive as mainstream models which attempt to estimate the object's mass based on x-ray emissions. In PC theory the x-ray emissions would relate more to amount of current flowing through the plasma atmosphere around the neutron star rather than induced currents generated by gravity alone.
[quote]As a result Plasma Cosmology offers no explanation for the evolution of elements in the universe.[/quote]
That's obviously false. sjastro is ignoring the fact that all EU/PC solar models include fusion processes, typically fusion that is related to z-pinch and coronal loop activity. Both Alfven's solar model relies on internal solar fusion, as would a cathode model.
Stars might even form and explode themselves *back* into neutron stars if conditions are favorable.
[quote]Big Bang Cosmology has no such compatibility issues with particle physics[/quote]
Absolutely false! BBC is *completely and totally *incompatible* with the *standard particle physics model*. Period, end of story. It cannot peacefully coexist with the standard particle physics model, whereas PC theory is *completely* compatible with the standard model of particle physics, and whatever "hypothetical changes" might eventually occur, should they actually ever occur at all.
[quote]Since Plasma Cosmology is a static model there is no temperature scaling with expansion and as demonstrated in post #107 the temperature is too low for the interaction to occur.[/quote]
It really doesn't matter if there is temperature scaling in EU/PC models. Temperatures in space aren't limited to the effects of gravity *alone* in EU/PC models, and effectively the *amount of current*, the density of that current, and the density of the plasma conducting that current, along with it's physical properties will determine the highest energy concentrations in the universe, and they will vary over time.
There's still *plenty* of enough energy to explain how fusion occurs, and how even very high energy and temperatures can exist in a PC model.
Essentially sjastro is "making it up" as he goes with respect to strawman arguments about PC theory.
I should point out that PC theory is compatible with both a static/eternal universe (which I personally favor), and also an expanding universe, and even a universe which expands and contracts locally in various places. There's nothing inherently limiting about PC theory with respect to particle physics, or electromagnetism.
On the other hand, the LCDM model violates conservation of energy laws *twice*, it's internally self conflicted with respect to estimating the expansion constant which it is based upon, and it's incompatible with virtually every high redshift observation in space. Distant galaxies and quasars are far to 'massive" and "mature" to fit nicely into the expansion model.
The LCDM model is completely at odds with *standard particle physics*! Think about that for a moment. It's physically incompatible with the most successful particle physics model in the history of particle physics and which allows for technologies like our computers to even exist.
When you really look at the 'pros' and the 'cons' of various cosmology models, you really have to compare the relative 'problems' and seriousness of those problems to each other. Any cosmology model that requires us to toss out laws of physics, and which is *inherently* incompatible with the standard particle physics model is far less plausible than any cosmology model which neither violates any laws of physics, and which *is* compatible with the standard particle physics model, circuit theory, etc.
When you really look at and analyze the arguments against PC theory which are put forth by "professional astronomers" and "scientists", they are simply irrational, and highly ironic arguments. sjastro really needs to pull the metaphysical logs out of the eyes of his own cosmology model before he starts discussing the hypothetical problems with other models.
He obviously doesn't understand his *own* model very well, and he clearly doesn't understand any of the proposed "solutions" to any of the problems he seems to imagine in PC theory.
The part that blows me away is the fact that when we look at the highest redshift part of the universe, it shows no signs at all of "evolution over time". The galaxies at the highest redshifts are as massive and as mature as the ones in our local neighborhood. The quasars as absolutely *massive*, far more massive than the mainstream model allows for, and there's no sign of evolution over time.
The LCDM model is incompatible with the standard particle physics model, it violates known laws of physics multiple times, and it is internally self conflicted with respect to the estimation of the Hubble constant which it is based upon. Its at odds with virtually every high redshift observation of space made over the past two decades as well.
One would expect that a "professional" could and would attempt to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of various cosmology models in a fair and honest manner. In this case however, I see no signs of any such internal self reflection.
https://www.christianforums.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.iinet.net.au%2F%7Esjastro%2Fastrophysics%2FsymmetryC.jpg&hash=f996b764fecf1a87e88b43edf32419d7
Even the graphic he's using in the post is rather ironic. It begins with an assumption about a "theory of everything", which requires a quantum description of gravity that does everything that GR theory does with respect to gravity, though no such thing exists, and the LCDM model is based on a *spacetime curvature* definition of gravity.
The GUT involved only apparently attempts to explain the *standard* model of particle physics, though the LCDM model is incompatible with that particular particle physics model. I'm guessing it's a GUT slide from 30 years ago before the invention (out of whole cloth) of 'dark energy' and the transformation of 'dark matter' in the LCDM model into "exotic forms of matter which are incompatible with the standard particle physics model". Funny stuff. :)